The fact that Botvinnik may not have been able to fully calculate this line from beginning to end, does not detract from this game at all. To me it actually adds luster to the game. Botvinnik had to rely on his great genius and instincts, and have faith in his abilities to play this great and wonderful game of chess. Perhaps one of the “All-Time Ten Best” games of chess ever played.

On the point of calculation, it bears noting that while playing through the game, I felt very much like a cheat. At various points, I was hardly able to conjure up a plan for White, let alone calculate lines. I was also deliberately lazy — or, to use a euphemism, “pragmatic” — in my calculations: unless I could spot an immediate straight-forward response by Black, I didn’t bother losing myself in the variation jungle. I am aware that such an approach fosters a bad habit, but on the other hand I’ve got a lurking suspicion that this is how high-calibre calculation works, too: better players simply need less brute-force calculation because they spot candidate moves more easily. Why should I bother with assessing potential positions if I don’t have the toolbox to assess such positions even if they were right in front of me? Or maybe I’m just looking for a patzer-cop out ;)

As for “lessons” from the game: there’s really only one that stuck out to me, and perhaps it’s too abstract to be useful, but here goes, anyway. I’m going to call it “Centre Pawn Against the King”. We know that pawns can be used as rams to open up a position. Yet we should also ask ourselves: which part of the board do we want to open up? Centre pawns most often break up the centre, but this needn’t be so. Rather than opening up the centre, we can push the centre pawn to open up the enemy kingside; the push may have the further benefit of locking up the centre, making it more difficult for enemy pieces to run to the king’s defence (according to the old adage, “If you’re attacked on the flank, strike back in the centre”, or, from the point of view of the attacker, “lock down the centre before you launch your flank attack”). Botvinnik employed this idea in his kingside attack against Capablanca once he had lured the Black pieces to the other side of the board with a pawn bait:

As I said, the idea may be too abstract, but I’m rather clueless about plans involving pawns, I even struggle with basic pawn storms or “preemptive” pawn moves against pawn storms. I would hope that chunks such as this might be valuable additions to my pawn-move toolkit.

If nothing else, the game beautifully demonstrates how to gauge attacking potential by simply looking at how much territory you have for your attack, how (in)accessible that territory is for the defender, or by simply counting the attacking and the defending pieces and observing the accord between the attackers versus the disharmony among the defenders. A magnificent work of chess art!

Was it Blue Devil Knight who told the tale of a man who became so obsessed with the notion of “square colour” and “colour dominance” that he forgot to protect his hanging pieces? Such cautionary tales of over-worrying about nebulous ideas notwithstanding, I believe thinking along the lines of “square colour” and “colour dominance” is an important step in improving one’s game once a decent tactical aptitude has been acquired.

ACIS of Caissa member Harvey has an insightful post on the subject. The basic idea emerging from his analysis is that you use your strong squares not just as outposts but as hubs or gateways (or “conveyor belts” in Harvey’s words) to access other sections of the board with your pieces. The idea is certainly gif-worthy, but not easy to illustrate.

Today I’ve also encountered another thinking process using colour considerations. In his latest installment of answering viewer questions, FM Dennis Monokroussos talks about how he selects candidate moves and then goes on to articulate his thought process for the position below. About 25 minutes into the video, he says:

Why wouldn’t I put the queen on c6? Well, the answer to that is two-fold. So first of all, at least at first glance, with all these pawns on light squares, I mean I’m thinking that I want to have my queen on a dark square because otherwise I’ve got nothing at all that can fight for dark squares, right? My light-square bishop can’t, and I don’t have any knights, and, you know, the rooks will eventually get there but they’re still going to fight for the dark squares behind the pawns rather than possibly in front of them, so queen c7 or queen e7 come to mind.

This thinking about pieces in terms of “what square colour can they fight for” struck me as a very helpful and indeed practical. Chess is very much a struggle for territory when the pawns are still on the board, and square-colour certainly ranks among the most important factors in territorial struggles. Here’s the corresponding gif with the position Dennis was looking at:

Of course, you still have to find a move and you always have to take the specifics of the position into account, but unless you make your decisions solely based on colour, I’m confident that considering the aspect of colour does more good than harm. If nothing else, it gives you new ideas, and that’s almost always a good thing.

Going through a rather stressful patch with little to no chess. This weekend, however, I managed to play through a master game. I neglected calculation and simply tried to anticipate move candidates. The game was Euwe – Keres 1948. Here are some chunks from the game.

Bishop sacrifice followed by queen intrusion and rook lift:

Let’s not forget that pawn forks exist in the middlegame and for rooks, too:

My favourite chunk of the game: the “poisoned rook”:

In other news, I’ve added the Chunk! training section where all gifs are posted in their raw form for quick perusal.